Abe Dabela,  Sandy Hook,  Sandy Hook inconsistencies,  Sandy Hook Thuggery,  Wolfgang Halbig

SH: The highly unlikely suicide of Abe Dabela: Part 2.

This article concludes the two-part series on the murder of Abe Dabela, pronounced a suicide by Stephen J. Sedensky III. Readers are urged to read Part 1 before continuing further.

 

Above is a map of the crime scene where, on April 5, 2014, Attorney Abe Dabela died of a gunshot wound to the back of his head. Around midnight, he was traveling north on Umpawaug Road, a lonely two-lane strip, cloaked by trees. His overturned car was later found where the road crossed Mallory Lane, too small to merit mention of its name in the map above, but large enough to hide a car and allow a driver to lie in wait.

Part 1 of this series outlined the circumstances that preceded Dabela’s death:

  • His outspoken defense of the second amendment and property rights in at least three local venues.
  • His history of contention over a gun permit with Redding’s chief of police, Douglas Fuchs.
  • And, most significant to this article, the call he made to Wolfgang Halbig to discuss the 12-14-12 Sandy Hook incident approximately three weeks before his death. During this call, Mr. Halbig says that Dabela expressed concerns about Sandy Hook based on 16 questions Mr. Halbig had posed.

In June 2017, Danbury state’s attorney Stephen J. Sedensky, III ruled unequivocally that no homicide had occurred in Dabela’s death. Sedensky had already achieved notoriety as the overseer of the official report on the Sandy Hook incident, a document loaded with inconsistencies.

Sedensky’s ruling on Dabela’s death did not silence Dabela’s family who, in late 2018, were still seeking DNA samples from three firefighters who were later determined to have been at the crime scene.

Where there’s smoke. According to the Dabelas’ attorneys, “[Abe] Dabela had been intimidated by Redding firefighters at a local bar a few weeks before his death.”

Who were these firefighters? This has never been disclosed. But we can say for a certainty that Redding Ridge* Fire Department ambulance – as well as Douglas Fuchs – were present at another, possibly relevant event: the Sandy Hook event of 12-14-12.

We know this because it was documented in the investigation report that Douglas Fuchs submitted to the State of Connecticut. (The full PDF is provided below.) Three dates appear on the report:

  • February 20, 2013 is given as the date that Fuchs’s report was obtained by three Newtown police officers after being “left at the Newtown Police Department.” This date appears on the cover of the report.
  • 3/18/13 is given at the bottom of the report cover as the official “report date.”
  • 2/4/13 is given at the top of page 2 of the report as the “rpt date.”

This is confusing. Apparently it took over a month (from Feb. 20 till March 18, 2013) for Newtown’s Police Dept. to process the report after it was “left.” And it took Fuchs nearly two months (from Dec. 14, 2012 till Feb. 4, 2013) to write the report. In between was a gap of 16 days (from Feb. 4 till Feb. 20) while the report sat in a drawer. Why all the delays?

To review why Douglas Fuchs submitted such a report: He was present and very actively engaged at the Sandy Hook fire house and school during the time of the purported Sandy Hook massacre.

According to his report, he was in his police cruiser at about 9:30 a.m. on 12-14-12, headed to a meeting in the Hartford vicinity, when he overheard radio transmissions from the Newtown Police Department about a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. He offered his assistance through the Redding Police Dispatch.

Let’s examine some of the statements from Fuchs’s document and see where it takes us.

Fuchs’s children. As discussed in Part 1, Fuchs had children attending Sandy Hook Elementary School at the time. A glaring omission in his report is whether or not he sought information on their safety and whereabouts after hearing about the shooting.

      CB: If he had, wouldn’t that be in the report? And if he hadn’t, why not?

Ambulances. “… I overheard another transmission on the Newtown frequency in which a Newtown Officer was asking for multiple ambulances as there were ‘bodies everywhere.’”

      CB: As we know, those ambulances never actually made it to the school. Instead, they massed up at the firehouse on Riverside Drive, about a tenth of a mile away. So if there were “bodies everywhere,” where were the bodies? At the firehouse?

Firefighters. “The Redding Ridge Fire Department ambulance was also summonsed [sic] and met us at the town line as well.”

      CB: Interesting. Fuchs seems to have rallied the Redding fire department to march on Sandy Hook. Remember: Abe Dabela was said to have feuded with some firefighters a few weeks before his death. Were they Redding firefighters? Was Dabela asking them about Sandy Hook?

Four Teachers. “On our way through Sandy Hook Center we encountered four Sandy Hook teachers who had fled the school … all requested that I transport them back to where the students were. I transported all four teachers to the Sandy Hook Firehouse on my way to the school.”

     CB: This seems odd. If teachers had “fled” the school, why did they want to return? Had they simply fled and abandoned their students and, perhaps, felt guilty later? Do other police reports make note of four teachers who fled the scene, then returned later, courtesy of Mr. Fuchs? (A question we’ll address further down.)

Later in the report, Fuchs writes that “All staff from Sandy Hook School was   gathered and each member was interviewed by the State Police in the firehouse.” How were they gathered? Did they all receive text messages on their iPhones?

According to Fuchs, there were stragglers running around in the Village, whom he transported. It’s quite logical to assume that other staff members also fled the  scene and ran home. How is it possible that “all staff” were interviewed “in the firehouse,” unless they had all been informed previously to gather there?

White male suspect. “Upon arrival at the school I met with Chief Kehoe … There was a white, male who had been detained by the Newtown Police Officers and there was great uncertainty as to what, if any, involvement he had in the incident … this individual who was eventually turned over to the Connecticut State Police.”

      CB: … And disappeared into the Sandy Hook swamp of permanent obfuscation. Was this the “gingerbread man” – Chris Manfredonia – the alleged father who  allegedly went to the SH school to make gingerbread houses? Or was this the  shadow man that police and their dogs chased in the woods behind the school at 12:23 p.m. according to this LIVE coverage WTNH report.

Reluctant to leave the scene. Fuchs describes how parents and concerned others were united with students in some detail. According to his testimony, parents and students alike began appearing at the firehouse. Toward the end of his description, this statement appears: “Once parents were reunited with their students, they were strongly encouraged to leave the firehouse to alleviate some of the chaos.”

      CB: Apparently, according to aerial footage from the police helicopter, the majority decided not to follow orders; instead, they paced around the parking lot and circled in and out of the building.

Identifying the dead. Fuchs tells us that two students of the 26 dead – transported to Danbury Hospital – weren’t identified, despite a police investigator sending photographs of them by email. It seems odd, given the presence of “all staff” — wouldn’t one of them been able to identify these children? Remember the questions that Wolfgang Halbig posed about these children (see Part 1 of this series). They reveal that the children were left untreated for at least an hour at the school because medics weren’t allowed in. Wouldn’t someone have been able to identify them during that hour of ostensible agony while they lay dying?

Fuchs also describes how he assisted State Police with victim identification through the creation of files and “spreadsheets” that would “negate the need for one on one family identification(s).” In other words, thanks to Fuchs et al., family members would never have to look at their dead loved ones again in order to make the final identifications. Thoughtful of him.

      CB: Missing from Fuchs’s description is where all of this activity took place. Never once does he mention going into the school to do this macabre work. From his  description, it seems these actions were all electronic, happening on a computer somewhere. If he actually entered the scene of the crime, that information has been purposely omitted. There are no redactions, just what would appear to be missing information.

It’s also interesting that Fuchs et al. created “spreadsheets” of the victims. That same ugly word appears in the FEMA Exercise Plan Mass Casualty Drill scheduled for 12/14/12 that is duplicated in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook on pp. 219-238. On page 234 in Chapter 23 (Player Guidelines), the following appears:

“The drill evaluator is responsible for:

  1. Recording the drill information, including date and location of drill, number of players, etc. (see Excel-based data collection spreadsheet).
  2. Gathering the data collection spreadsheets from each player.

Other testimony. Thanks to Diane Jakopovik, another Sandy Hook researcher, we were able to check Fuchs’s report against other police records archived in the CT State Police Sandy Hook Shooting website.

These include the following:

(1) Report #00179629 (Newtown Police Radio Transmissions on 12-14-12.)

(2) Report #00040428 (Testimony of Sergeant Signore of the Redding Police Department)

(3) Report #00040345 (Testimony of Officer Heibeck of the Redding Police Department)

(4) Report #00251430 (Testimony of CT State Trooper Slaiby)

(5) Section 13 – Supplemental Reports (page 384 by Officer Jeffrey Silver)

Notable items from each of the above that confirm or contradict Fuchs’s report are listed below.

The Newtown Police Dept. transcript (1): At 10:14:02, the transcript refers to “two officers and an ambulance” from Redding as being “en route.” At 10:15:16 they refer to unidentified people “at Subway over there on Church Hill” who asked for “police presence.” At 10:16:05, it’s confirmed that the Redding officers were sent to address the situation at Subway.

The reports from Redding Police Sergeant Signore (2) and Officer Heibeck (3): Signore says they arrived at the Sandy Hook Fire Dept. at 9:45, whereas Heibeck says they arrived there at 10:00. Both accounts do not jibe with the police transcripts, which have the officers still “en route” at 10:14. Like Fuchs, both Signore and Heibeck mention the “white male” who was detained by state troopers. But neither of them mentions the “four teachers” in Fuchs’s report, nor do they mention people at Subway requesting police presence. Curiously, both of these reports list the same dates on their cover pages as the Fuchs report: February 20, 2013 and 3/18/13.

The report from CT State Trooper Ryan Slaiby (4): This intriguing report provides a secondhand account of a female teacher who allegedly fled the school. Trooper Slaiby says that “at approximately 12:05,” presumably on the day of the shooting, he received “a sworn written statement regarding the school shooting” from the teacher. Too bad the verbatim account by the teacher attached to his report is completely redacted. Slaiby plods along, however, and we get the picture: The female teacher and several others climbed out of a window and fled first to the Villa Restaurant, then eventually ended up in the Subway Restaurant at Glen Road and Church Hill. According to Slaiby, the teacher also stated that “a police detective from Redding drove them to the firehouse from Subway to account for their students.”

      CB: Ah. Now it makes sense. The teachers ran hell-for-leather from one restaurant to another before remembering their charges, then begged for a ride back to the school.

Oddly or not, the date on the cover of Trooper Slaiby’s report is a mere day after that for Chief Fuchs’s report: 3/19/2013.

The Section 13 Supplemental Reports (5). Oddest of all the reports, perhaps, is this monster, containing literally hundreds of solidly redacted pages. But on the very last page – #384 – we find our quarry: one more salute to Chief Fuchs. The narrative, given by Newtown Police Officer Jeffrey Silver, is about the sorry state of affairs at 36 Yogananda on 12/23/2012, which we are told had not been “properly secured or cleaned since the initial incident.” Preposterous, you say? Well, you can thank our hero, Chief Fuchs, for his prompt intervention. Fuchs is credited with contacting a representative from Home Depot and arranging to have the haunted property boarded up and secured on 12/24/12, just in time for Christmas.

Conclusion. Douglas Fuchs’s report was finally part of the Newtown police record by March 18, 2013. Abe Dabela was murdered on April 5, 2014. In between those two dates, Dabela had plenty of time to review Fuchs’s report and to ask questions similar to those posed above. We can speculate as to whether his questions led to his death. But one thing is for certain: Dabela had questions about Sandy Hook. And those questions were never answered.

 

~C.

 

*Redding Ridge is a portion of Redding of historic interest. See http://historyofredding.net/HRreddingridge.htm

H/T: Diane Jakopovic, Alison Maynard, Tony Mead, Anne Berg and Wolfgang Halbig

~~~

“The trouble in this case is that everybody has been much too credulous and believing. You simply cannot afford to believe everything that people tell you. When there’s anything fishy about, I never believe anyone at all. You see, I know human nature so well.” – Jane Marple in The Body in the Library by Agatha Christie

2 Comments

  • DIANE JAKOPOVIC

    Excellent summarization of yet another area of nonsense and confusion in the CSP report. You raise some valid questions about the strange death of Dabela. Nothing about that accident makes much sense, either. Such a tragedy for his parents who desperately need answers.

    Your article brought to mind how many of the first-hand account statements of officers on scene, weren’t signed for weeks or months after the event, so one would presume that’s when they were written. Even a child knows that it’s important to get the information related as soon as possible before the memory fades or gets corrupted. There were several statements that were not signed until mid-July… nearly 7 months later. How can anyone accurately remember all the details so long after the event? They can’t. But if they had written them earlier, certainly they would have signed them earlier.

    Thank you for a excellent article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *